Tag Archives: carbon emissions

Global Perspective

Posted on by
12

For my final blog post of the term, I will focus on Global Perspective. A global perspective is a viewpoint that attempts to understand the place of individuals, groups, cultures, and societies in the world and how they relate to each other. An example of a global perspective is studying the implications of economic policies on illegal drug use specifically the supply chain, where the drug is produced, and the local area where the drug is sold.
The link below provides information on the global perspective of climate change. In terms of the math part of this, According to The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from 280 ppm in the period 1000–1750 AD to 379 ppm in the year 2005. The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled from 700 ppb in the period 1000–1750 AD, to reach a concentration of 1774 ppb in the year 2005. The concentrations of hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, SF6, and N2O have also increased. The tropospheric concentration of ozone has increased even though its stratospheric concentration has decreased.

 

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4020-5774-8_1#:~:text=The%20global%20mean%20surface%20temperature,warmed%20faster%20than%20the%20oceans.

 

 

global perspective

 

Single Use Plastic Bottles per Week

Posted on by
80

Single use plastic water bottles are very bad for the environment, typically because they are not recycled and are often thrown out. The plastic takes centuries to full decay and as plastic decays it leaks dangerous chemicals into the groundwater and soil. Even if plastic is recycled, it might not be recycled properly and would still need to decay on the earth. The total carbon footprint of one plastic water bottle is about 828 grams of carbon dioxide. Lots of college students use single use plastic bottles for water, coffee or any other drink. These cups are typically thrown away, adding to the amount of plastic waste in the world. This chart shows that the average number of single use plastic bottles per week is 3.9 amongst the sample size that I gathered data from. The lowest number per week was 0, due to my friend’s constant usage of a reusable water bottle and the highest number was 9. That means per week a college aged student similar to my friends would use 3.9 single use bottles adding up to a 3229.2 grams of carbon dioxide per week released due to this plastic waste.

sources: https://www.greenamerica.org/blog/truth-about-bottled-water

 

Fast Fashion and It’s Consequences

Posted on by
12

Many companies involved in fast fashion and unsustainable practices use outdated and less eco-friendly processes to produce their goods. A a result of these outdated manufacturing practices, the carbon footprint of many clothing brands are alarmingly high. Fast fashion caters to increasingly high levels of supply and demand, so the products are over produced, and then retailers buy them at exceedingly high prices. Whatever is left over are usually disposed of unethically, rather than being donated or up-cycled. Brands like Aerie, She-in, and the like are some of the biggest contributors to this issue. However, there are viable, and fun alternative solutions to this issue that not only are sustainable, they’re also very much within current fashion trends and practices. As mentioned earlier, up cycling is not only an alternative option, it’s also affordable. Thrifting is also a popular alternative, and it’s also way more affordable than buying at full price in-store. Savers, Goodwill, and the Salvation Army are all large and fairly well known companies that utilize thrifting practices. There are several benefits to thrifting and buying clothes which include, but are not limited too, lesser levels of air pollution, less waste production, and healthier oceans. It turns out that polyester, which is used in many fabrics, doesn’t decompose in water, and instead just adds to the pollution of our oceans. Strikingly enough, people throw away 60-80 pounds, on average, of unwanted clothing over the course of their lifetimes. The fashion industry also contributes to ~10% of global carbon emissions. So, it is not unfair to state that thrifting is, in fact, good for the environment, and it’s also wicked fun.

 

Sources:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2022/01/31/sustainability-in-fast-fashion-how-tech-can-minimize-waste/?sh=2f5be76331e6

https://www.swiftfit.net/blog/sustainable-thrift-shopping

The Dangers of Commuting to Work

Posted on by
10

Commuting to work is something that many Americans dread. Depending on the person’s location or job, their commute can be very long or it can be full of rush hour traffic to and from the office. Commuting is not just frustrating, it is also very detrimental to our environment. The average one way commute to work in the United States in 2019 was 28 minutes one way, making a round trip to work a 56 minute hour total commute. This is almost an hour of commuting daily. Almost 3% of Americans walked to work in 2019 and less than 1% rode bikes to work in 2019.  This means that the majority of Americans use vehicles to get to work. Cars release emissions that put fossil fuels into the atmosphere, which is harmful to the planet. Cars and trucks account for nearly one fifth of all US emissions, emitting around 24 pounds of carbon dioxide (and other harmful greenhouse gases) per gallon of gas. There are easy ways to decrease our carbon footprint and negative impact on the environment including carpooling, walking to work or biking to work. Additionally, electronic cars are an excellent way to still commute far distances but at much less of an environmentally damaging cost. Electric cars are an excellent, safe alternative to cars that use gas. There are so many easy ways to reduce our carbon footprint and we can start with altering how we commute daily.

citations: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/car-emissions-global-warming#:~:text=Our%20personal%20vehicles%20are%20a,for%20every%20gallon%20of%20gas.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/sis/resources/earth-day-ff.pdf

Fast Fashion’s Effect on Environment

Posted on by
715

Since the Pandemic, shopping online has increased tremendously.  With that being said, it’s not uncommon that many people try to find the cheapest “dupes” of high quality clothes.  The fashion industry itself consumes one tenth of the water used industrially to clean products and run factories.  Thinking about the total amount of water used to produce one cotton shirt that would be about 3,000 liters of water used.  Not only is the water usage a big problem but fast fashion is responsible for higher carbon emissions than both international flights and maritime shipping combined.  Within the next decade, an increase of 50% of carbon emissions is expected if we continue this trend.

A 2017 report from the International Union for Conservation of Nature had stated 35% of all micro plastics in the ocean come from synthetic clothing like polyester.  Since Fast Fashion is in high demand of products in a short period of time, the amount of waste emitted into the air is heavily weighed upon fashion, with 1.2 billion tonnes of carbon being emitted due to the fashion industry.  This is why it’s so important to stop shopping at stores such as Shein and forever 21 producing an exuberant amount of cotton and polyester, which not only puts the workers and farmers at harm when using toxic pesticides to grow the products, but many workers get injured due to the poor working conditions these fast fashion companies put their employees in.   Thrifting old garments is an excellent way of decreasing the amount of carbon emission as well as lowering the water usage for production.

resources:

https://psci.princeton.edu/tips/2020/7/20/the-impact-of-fast-fashion-on-the-environment

Fast Fashion: Its Detrimental Effect on the Environment

Fast Fashion’s Environmental Impact: The True Price Of Trendiness

Carbon Emissions

Posted on by
13

The United States emitted a grand total of 5,222 million metric tonnes of CO2 in 2020, which was an 11% decrease following the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, but this downward trend would prove to be only temporary. However, in comparison to 2005 CO2 emission levels, there was a 21% decrease, which I found to be interesting. In 2020 alone, carbon dioxide accounted for  ~79% of GHG emissions, while nitrous oxide, methane, and various fluorinated gases made up the other 21%. 27% of these emissions were caused by transportation alone, electricity contributed to 1/4 of these emissions, and the rest were sectioned off into industry, commercial usage, and, unsurprisingly, agricultural energy consumption. Ten years prior, the overall emission measurement (circa 2010) fell around 5,594 million metric tonnes, which while not a huge difference, really puts things in perspective. If we could somehow figure out a balance between all the above aspects of everyday life, and managed to cut back on energy consumption in a realistic yet sustainable way, it would be for the better.

 

 

 

 

sources:

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks

https://www.statista.com/statistics/183943/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-from-1999/

Sustainable Carbon Emissions

Posted on by
9

Carbon Dioxide emissions are crucial to address when concerning climate change and global warming. Industrial Revolutions have been occurring for about 200 years and are still happening in countries today. Carbon emissions contribute to the overall heating of the Earth, the IPCC has made goals to try to limit heating to 1.5 degrees Celsius over the pre-industrial level. If our emissions continue on the trend they’re on we will pass by the 1.5-degree mark quickly. According to the Mauna Loa Record Keeling Curve in 1960 the carbon concentration levels were at about 315ppm fast forward to 2020 where it reached about 415ppm. That’s an overall change of 100ppm, 32% increase, growth factor of 1.32, and an average rate of change of 1.67ppm/yr. It’s difficult to enforce and make policies to ensure fair and equal emission standards. There’s a lot of debate over levels and who should be held responsible for the emissions and countries have to be able to industrialize as well. But there is a lot of promise in the renewable energy field. Many innovations, jobs, and decreased use of carbon would result in helping decrease the concentration levels from contributing to the warming of the Earth.

https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mauna_loa_record.html

got milk?

Posted on by
8

In the past few years, non-dairy milk products have seen a rise in popularity and sales. This move away from dairy milk was at first attributed to diet concerns and a trend in cutting out dairy, but lately the current climate conditions have been factoring in to the general populations milk-buying decisions. Non-dairy milks range from pea milk to walnut milk to soy milk, and they’ve been marketed as healthy alternatives to cow milk. Another draw to non-dairy milks has been concern for animal welfare, which could also explain the rise in veganism/vegetarianism (Gustin). However, concern for the changing climate has started to creep its way to the top of people’s list for choosing alternative milk products. Since non-dairy milks make up 10% of the milk market, competition runs high, and many alternative milk companies are funding research to find out exactly how big each alternative milks’ carbon footprint is. One study found that a liter of pea milk results in 387g of carbon dioxide, a liter of almond milk results in 396g of carbon dioxide, a liter of soy milk results in 397g of carbon dioxide, and a liter of cow milk results in 1,467g of carbon dioxide (Gustin). With these numbers, it’s easy to market non-dairy milks as the more sustainable choice. Representatives of non-dairy milk companies make the argument that even nut milks which require a lot of water and other resources to produce are more sustainable than cow milk, therefore competition within the non-dairy market should cease, and companies should instead work together to help as much as they can to affect climate change.

 

Gustin, G. 2018. Cows vs. Nuts: Who Gets to be Called Milk, and Are They Climate Friendly? Inside Climate News. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/24012018/almond-soy-milk-non-dairy-climate-change-impact/